Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter Matt Slaybaugh writes "John Foley at InformationWeek has an editorial saying that the missing piece in the new gun control legislation is adequate data management. 'President Obama introduced 23 executive orders on Jan. 16 aimed at reducing gun violence through a combination of tougher regulation and enforcement, research, training, education and attention to mental healthcare. Several of the proposed actions involve better information sharing, including requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the FBI's background check system and easing legal barriers that prevent states from contributing data to that system.' But concrete plans are needed now to improve the current poor system of data collection and sharing. Federal CIO Steven VanRoekel's Digital Government Strategy, introduced in May, 'defines an IT architecture and processes for sharing digitized content securely, using Web APIs and with attention to protecting privacy. ... Unfortunately, on top of the data quality issues identified by the White House, and the FBI's and ATF's outdated IT systems, there's a lack of transparency about the systems used to enforce federal gun-control laws.'"

Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?

Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style).

"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."

Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.

What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.

I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.

Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.

Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.

"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."

Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.

What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.

I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.

Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.

Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.

Sorry, but states do not have the ability to nullify Federal laws, unconstitutional or not. Only the judiciary can do that.

"BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won."

Sorry, just wrong. Time to read the history books.

For just one example, the propaganda insinuating that nullification has been "discredited", or has racist roots, are what is really BS. One, and only one, Southern governor threatened to try using it against anti-discrimination laws, but he never actually did.

On the other hand, nullification was used successfully by the North against the Fugitive Slave Laws. It was never used in support of slavery. (In fact, South Carolina listed Northern nullification as its first justification, in its declaration of secession. Other Southern states listed it also in their declarations, but not as the first reason.)

It has been used many times since. Far from being discredited, it has been used numerous times, and is in active effect right now!

No less than 26 states have nullified the Federal "Real ID Act". It is effectively dead in the water.

A number of states have nullified Federal marijuana laws, making marijuana legal in those states (or at least decriminalizing it). Two states recently passed legislation making it legal for recreational, not just medical, use.

Several states have nullified Federal gun laws already. At least one of them has made it a felony for anybody to attempt to enforce Federal gun laws that the state considers to be extra-constitutional. Tennessee is considering similar legislation, as are other states.

So examples of modern, current state nullification are all around you. All Government propaganda aside, you can call it "discredited" all you want, but you would know better if you just pulled your head out and took a look around. For a "discredited" concept, it sure has been -- and continues to be -- pretty darned effective.

As much as I would like to criticize you for not understanding how the Constitutional Amendment process can be used by the states to effectively nullify federal laws, I find myself unable to, and instead would like to commend you for the fact that, unlike most, you seem to actually know the real reasons the Civil War was fought.

the War on Guns will prove to be as successful and as effective as the War on Drugs has proven to be.

And also, just as unauthorized.

Prohibition WRT alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Marijuana, for some magical reason, did not. Why? I mean, other than government out of control? Where did this magical power to step on our liberties come from?

The 2nd amendment is explicit: The government is forbidden from infringing upon our right to keep and carry arms. They are engaged in applying unauthorized power to the citizens with every law that infringes on the right to keep and carry arms, of which there are a huge number.

Any law that interposes licensing, restrictions on carrying (whether open or not), or restricts any particular arm, is completely outside the scope of the government's legitimate authority.

The constitution is the highest law in the land. The government is engaged in breaking that law.

I'm sorry, but you're missing out on three things: one, the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like. Two, we're already restricting what arms can be carried. Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile? Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban. Yes, it is a restriction, but only at the dictionary level. I hope you understand context.

the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like.

And you don't get to ignore simple English when trying to eviscerate basic rights. The clause about the militia is an explanatory clause, not a regulatory clause. I.e., it explains one reason (but not every reason) why the right that is specified in that amendment is important. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear...", it says "the right" unqualified.

And when talking about the militia, in the day that was written, "the militia" meant, essentially, everyone.

Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile?

Actually, from your comment about the 2nd amendment applying only to a militia member, those are exactly the kinds of weapons that should be protected by the 2nd amendment. In any case, yes, according to a prima facie reading of the 2nd amendment, there is no limit on the arms with respect to automatic or semiautomatic, or size.

Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban.

Licensing is exactly the same as a ban for anyone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements for obtaining the license, and it is absolutely an infringement for everyone else.

If you change the criteria of "right to bear arms", and you lesson the numbers or options of those arms, you are infringing. Also a very simple and easily understood statement.

To simplify for you, if it is my right to drink any soda brand I want, and you come to me and say "Well, yeah, everything but Shasta.", you are without question or room for interpretation infringing on my right to dink soda.

Probably the part where you mention government and doing something intelligently, of which lately I haven't seen anything even remotely bordering on intelligent thinking from our government. They do seem very intent on sacking everyones liberties, of course the spoon feed masses just keep eating.

What has happened in the last five years that even approaches the offensive intrusion of the patriot act? What liberties are you even talking about, or is the second amendment the only one you've read?

Congress (legislative) is a check to the President's power, as are the courts (judicial).
2nd grade civics....

The President has the authority to veto. But that need not be the final outcome. If Congress so chooses they can (and have) override the Presidential veto by establishing a 2/3rd's majority vote in both houses of Congress, which passes the bill to law with or without the President's blessing.
4th grade civics....

Congress (legislative) is a check to the President's power, as are the courts (judicial).

2nd grade civics....

The President has the authority to veto. But that need not be the final outcome. If Congress so chooses they can (and have) override the Presidential veto by establishing a 2/3rd's majority vote in both houses of Congress, which passes the bill to law with or without the President's blessing.

4th grade civics....

Of course, if the President doesn't veto, and instead signs the bill into law, Congress never has to worry about reconsidering the proposal.

This whole thing is basically the gun equivalent of the Patriot Act. Wait for some people to get killed and while it has national exposure, push through laws that violate out Constitutional rights using the deaths as an excuse.

"What has happened in the last five years that even approaches the offensive intrusion of the patriot act? "

1. The 2012 NDAA, which authorizes the government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without criminal charges, with no right to challenge the evidence against them, with no right to legal counsel and no right to a fair trial.

2. Arbitrary assassination of U.S. citizens without so much as a criminal charge.

The government decided that this was a perfect oppurtunity to do something they very much wanted to do already (disarming people). They pooled a lot of things their colleagues suggested as requirements (inter-agency sharing of information, pooled profiles, mental health reporting, etc.) and kicked out a bunch of nebulous "wouldnt it be great if" thoughts translated into mandates.

Well, it'd be great if we could all ride rainbows and unicorns to work every day. But the reality is it aint going to happen. When government dicates a thing that is unrealistic (rather than fully impossible, like unicorns) they ensure that a ridiculous amount of money will be spent to produce a "thing". After the initial uproar of public opinion wanes and the bureaucrats are no longer getting nightly soundbites on national news for the topic, they are still on the hook for translating the nebulous ideas into tangible action items. They are also required to find funding for this yet to be fully designed "thing", but they are desperately bored and have moved on to whatever new national crisis is making headlines. So their underlings are assigned to get the heads of various departments and agencies to agree on some methods to accomplish some fraction of the original idea, assuring that the "thing" that comes out of the beltway meatgrinder is a collosal expense, a half-assed solution that maybe fits some of the original requirements (sorta), and is implemented 5 different ways by 10 different groups that refuse to abdicate authority to any other party involved. No one actually owns this "thing" so it is mismanaged and ineffectual.

And this also assumes a great many things; That these nebulous ideas actually fix the crisis, that the mandates are are legal or appropriate, and that some whacko didnt hijack the whole thing for some completely unintended or unforseen political agenda.

And what's even better is that the next administration comes in and uproots half of this "thing" (or more), adding to the waste of time, sweat and money.

Two things I tell my 9 year-old son; "Dont make decisions when you're angry." and "If you dont have time to do it right the first time, you arent going to have time to fix it.", and he actually gets it. Apparently my 9 year old is able to wrap his head around these simple concepts far better than politicians.

Are you suggesting that what is required in order to impliment the President's orders is trivial? Or that the President and/or his staff are IT professionals who fully understand the technical hurdles required?

No, I suggest that they have thought through the implications, and the ones we're seeing as negative they're seeing as the opposite. If it will require a bunch of new funding and power, they're definitely going to take that as a good thing. They're more than capable of bringing in some technical types to explain the economic implications, but by now they probably have a good idea that they will be able to siphon X amount of dollars for a project of approximately Y scope. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a

The parent never mentioned having an 'entitlement to personal safety'; please don't put words in people's mouths.

Also, as the executive officer of a large and powerful country (most would agree the the most powerful), ensuring the holder of the position's safety is important for many reasons, and if you can't see why that is, I think you may need to think a little more rationally on this.

If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.

Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?

And, BTW, there have been numerous cases where the courts have made it explicitly clear that police are under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to protect anyone.

If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.

Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?

If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.

Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?

Doesn't always work for presidents. Your point?

You don't get it? I'll spell it out for you: Claiming that your right to protect yourself is provided by "society" through the police force so banning your access to firearms is not an infringement of rights (as you claimed) is a lie.

And in the new today, a guy in Nunavut is still in jail after 2 years after self-defending himself in his home. His conviction was overturned but he has to have another trial. He called the police and they made it in time to arrest him.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. The police has no mandate to protect the individual, especially not if it involves an armed threat that could endanger the officer. All the examples you quote, from politicians to witness protection, are based on an active decision by law enforcement that it would be to their benefit to extend protection, not because it's the right of the person to be protected.

This, obviously, calls for more security, than your average Joe Schmo needs.

I'm glad you are accepting that having armed guards means more security. I mean it's just common sense but for a while there anti-gun crowd (including Obama and mainstream media) were trying to convince us that presence of guns always means less security. I'm hope that, like you, they abandon that stupid argument and agree to abolishing the "gun free zones" and allow schools to have more security as well if they feel they n

OH, that's rich! I a friend of mine, in Oakland, had a guy TWO NIGHTS IN A ROW violently try to break down her back door to get in. While this was happening,she called the police, and they said "we're busy, we'll be sending someone out shortly". Who never arrived. Twice. This to a woman home alone, who at the moment she's on the phone has a guy trying to batter down her door.He was scared away by neighbors the first time, the second time a large 2X4 buttressing the door kept him out. He hasn't been back,

Semi-Automatic weapons are *NOT* machine guns... most guns are semi-automatic.. even revolvers that rotate the next chamber while pulling the trigger. All Semi-Automatic weapons to is to load the next round without having to do anything other than pull the trigger. This includes every standard firearm used by police agencies and the FBI... specifically the side-arms they carry.

There is already an effective ban (*very* high tax) on fully automatic weapons.

Wow, I see the completely unreasonable, unable-to-make-a-valid-argument-so-they-immediately-fall-back-to-lowest-common-denominator-ad-hominem-personal-attacks crowd has nothing better to do than harass everyone that doesn't agree with him!

What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really, really can't see the issue with not providing the president of the United States of America - YOUR president - with more security than Joe Schmoe down the street? Has ideology really clouded your mind so much that you can't the basic reality of who wants to kill the president, and who wants to kill Joe Schmoe?

That's not it at all - I don't have a problem with the President being surrounded by heavily armed guards 24/7.

What I, and most other gun owners, have a problem with is this person who is so heavily protected by guns (paid for by our taxes) telling us that we have no right to protect ourselves with guns.

I agree that the President has much greater security needs than the average citizen. That's why he has armed professionals guarding him at all times.

The question is, why should those armed professionals be permitted to have weapons which are unavailable to the private citizen? If I am expected to defend myself and my family with a non-banned firearm and a ten round magazine, why can't a group of armed professionals defend the president or other public figure with the same weapons?

At the core, the reason is because these people are professionals. This implies background checks, tracking of their tools, and the ability to remove them from their position if they are not capable of performing their job. Furthermore, because they're government workers, it also implies a final oversight by the voters. Don't like the legislation covering the Secret Service? Vote out the legislators who did a bad job, and vote in those who will

The AC put it well. Everyone has the same RIGHT to be secure if not the same level of need for active precautions. The irony of those in power with provided on location protection at tax payer expense passing legislation to deprive others of the right to protect themselves in a similar manner is interesting to say the least.
The thing that kills me about all this legislation is I have yet to hear one that would actually have prevented the various situations in recent events. They would perhaps have provide

So the President and all members of Congress have a "right" to security that must include full auto assault weapons. But since you and I dont absolutely require it, it is not a right?

All citizens have a right until it is lost through an unlawful act, or all citizens do not. All are treated equally under the law. Period. How often a person may or may not rely upon that right changes the existence of it by exactly zero.

I said nothing of the sort. I was simply stating your needs and the needs of the President are wildly different and that a false equivalency was being made. Without security, he'd probably be dead in a week. You (and the masses at large) are not in the same situation. Get over it.

Bank balance? The realization that personal security is largely one's own responsibility (which I refuse to abdicate), and that I am in many/most cases the best person to provide that for myself, and determine the level that is adequate for me?

Last I checked, the president's armed guards (or Rosie O'Donnell's, or anyone else for that matter) aren't carrying military style assault rifles or hand guns with extended clips. If you haven't read the articles that he's proposing, stop spouting off about things you don't know enough about.

the fuck is a "military style assault rifles"? Are you one of those retards afraid of the SHAPE of the gun instead of the person wielding it?

The secret service absolutely does use magazines that would be banned by this legislation (unless you think they load 7 round magazines in their submachine guns) and the only reason their weapons aren't banned by this law is because they are already banned by earlier ones. MP5s, P90s, SR-16s, Mk11s... this is not the tack to take when responding to this line of argument.

The correct line IMO is this: Those agents are all background checked, mentally evaluated, and properly trained. They also have a legitimate use case for those weapons; that of defending a high risk target against an organized and well armed attack. To use the obligatory car analogy, trying to compare the Secret Service to placing armed guards in every school in America (or every home in America) is like arguing that drag racers are really fast, so we should all drive dragsters everywhere we go.

If they are anything like regular police, they carry handguns with 15-17 round magazines, and an Ar-15 with 30 round magazine as a backup, like police carries in almost every squad car. Exactly the things they are trying to ban. Happy now, dumbass?

Being active duty military AND having travelled with secret service agents I can assure they do travel with military assault rifles and handguns and BOTH have extended magazines. I will agree with you that most likely Rosie O'Donnell's or other celebrity's security most likely doesn't. Rest assured the POTUS's does.

Last I checked, the president's armed guards (or Rosie O'Donnell's, or anyone else for that matter) aren't carrying military style assault rifles or hand guns with extended clips.

Since "extended clip" was "more than 10 round" in the previous "assualt weapons" ban law, and some legislators are consdering 7 rounds as the limit, I can guarantee you that most bodyguards are carrying weapons with "extended clips" by those defintions.

Secondly, "military style assault rifles" are not a problem, as those are fully automatic, and are highly regulated. If you believe that the semi-automatic rifles that look "dangerous" and which were banned for sale by the "assualt weapons" ban can give someone an advantage over a person who is carrying a not-as-dangerous-looking hunting rifle (for long range) or a pump-action shotgun (for close range), then take your own advice and "stop spouting off about things you don't know enough about".

Actually, New York state already passed that into law. It caused quite an outburst from the police in the state, because the legislators neglected to provide them an exemption. They've promised to "fix" the law, immediately, of course. Which just demonstrates it's not about gun control, it's about establishing a gun monopoly.

When the Constitution was written, after the Revolutionary war, there was no difference between military weapons and those weapons among the civilian population. Any weapon that could be carried in the arms of a soldier, could also be carried in the arms of a civilian. The operative phrase in the Second Amendment is: “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. It is the God-given right of individuals to defend themselves. Animals are given claws and teeth for this purpose. Bet

I agree with the OP, but I don't hear widespread support for attempting to repeal bans on civilian ownership of nuclear weapons. The majority of gun owners and the NRA are also willing to live with the restrictions imposed by the federal gun control laws of 1934 & 1968. No machine guns, no mail order firearms delivered to the door etc.

That's a HUGE amount of compromise on the Second Amendment, but these anti-gun fanatics want more and more bans. Sorry gun grabbers. We've compromised more than enough

If you believe that the semi-automatic rifles that look "dangerous" and which were banned for sale by the "assualt weapons" ban can give someone an advantage over a person who is carrying a not-as-dangerous-looking hunting rifle (for long range) or a pump-action shotgun (for close range), then take your own advice and "stop spouting off about things you don't know enough about".

Seriously, you might want to look into facts yourself before you start accusing others of not knowing what they're doing. Let's look at a standard hunting rifle, maybe something like a Remington 30-06 Sprignfield. Bolt-action, 4 round magazine, with a range of 300-400 yards. If you can engage someone from a hidden position at that range, you have the advantage. If you engage someone out in the open, in movement, at about 100 feet range, the guy with the AR-15 is going to own your ass, unless you get the kil

There is a difference between a right and the ability to exercise that right.

Of course. But you're still missing the point. You need to be able to justify your right from a philosophical perspective before you can expect me to endorse it. Since you brought up Rosa Parks elsewhere: that black people should have the same rights as white people was, at some point, not self-evident. As a matter of fact, it took about 100 years of discussion and violence to make that seem self-evident in retrospect. You don't get to short-circuit the discussion about the right to bear arms with a "becaus

I guess that is a intelligent way of disarming most while staying armed. They will NEVER collect all the guns even if they tried. Pandora's box has already been opened. The most they can hope to do is collect and destroy all legally owned guns. That means all respectable, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens will be stripped of their guns while many criminals will still have them. All in all, if the president is armed until all other guns are destroyed, the president will always be armed. The fact of the matter

Actually, the legislation from Senator Feinstein would ban pretty much every single semiautomatic firearm [reason.com], her list of "banned/approved" notwithstanding. Poor legislation results in the total ban; this is what happens when those who are ignorant of firearms try to write legislation limiting/restricting firearms.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that may be true, but that concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question ofwhether the regulations at issue here are reasonable.

MR. DELLINGER: Well, the different kind of right that you're talking about, to take this to the question of -- of what the standard ought to be for applying this, even if this extended beyond a militia-based right, if it did, it sounds more like the part of an expansive publ

When you split a sarcastic statement between the title and the text of your comment, it's almost like an accidental(?) troll. But yep, if requiring a person be licensed to have a firearm doesn't violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then requiring newspapers, churches, assemblies of people, etc., to be licensed doesn't violate their First Amendment rights.

And since the courts do in fact seem to be starting down that line regarding our First Amendment rights...the Second Amendment rights b

And if you want to criticize the government it is no problem. You will just have to apply for a license for a reasonable fee of $200 (like current class 3 gun permit), and be photographed, fingerprinted and entered into a database (as per Feinstein's bill). No infringement of the 1st amendment there, right?

Little known fact: the President is actually the head of the executive branch of government, which contains agencies such as the ATF and DOJ. And since he's the head of those departments he can set policy for those departments within the confines of their legislation!

The real problem is not polution, corruption, gun-control, or any one specific issue. It is a matter of enforcement. I think at this point that if congress were to read through every federal law on the books that they would be unable to complete the read-through in a years time (not counting all of their vacations and holidays). If the current laws are not enforced how is creating more going to solve anything? There is an industry around creating new laws. This is wrong at a fundamental level. Coincidentally it is the same problem with the medical situation. There is an entire "medical-billing industry": middlemen paid to shuffle papers with no real gain for the people footing the bill.

The government needs to dump what they've got and start from scratch. But all I can say is good luck.

They can barely set up a site properly, let alone build and manage a sophisticated database. Visit most government sites and they're a convoluted maze of poorly organized content. And federal government sites are halfway decent, state and municipal sites are many orders of magnitude worse. I can't comprehend how the companies that build that junk remain in business.

Well, actually I can. I know people IT and web who've done work for my state and it's an absolute nightmare. It's the sort of thing that they've consistently said they'd never do again. I think the few willing to do it haven't so much figured out how to work through the red tape so much as exploit the system for personal gain. It doesn't help when you're dealing with government workers who are total incompetents, managing things they know nothing about. But as long as they look productive they don't have to worry about accountability.

And that's part of the problem. You still have to deal with the human component. I know someone who was self-employed and struggling. Because of it he was eligible for free health insurance through the state so he applied successfully. There's no copay or anything because, as was explained to him by a social worker, even if they only charged a dollar most people on the program would still refuse to pay. The expectation is that it all should be free.

So a year in he lands a decent job and is no longer eligible for the program. He gets in touch with the worker to cancel the plan. Over the next year he continues getting plan updates. They even switch providers for him. The state partners with various companies and over so often they have to switch providers. The user is supposed to pick a plan or risk cancellation. But apparently if you ignore all the paperwork they take care of it all for you. So here he was calling multiple times before they finally dropped him. Someone with fewer scruples could have milked the plan indefinitely. And in fact, I know of some people who've done just that.

That's just one example. I have others. With this level of incompetence how can we expected any program to be implemented and managed properly? The existing program should already be addressing these problems. No one ever assess and analyzes. It's always that we need something even bigger and more complex couple to the idea that more money can fix any problem. Then when the next grand program fails they'll just start the cycle all over.

I'm not suggesting we don't need an overhaul. I'm simply pointing out that it's almost certainly going to be a financial morass resulting in something no more effective than we've got now.

I suspect the problem of establishing interoperability among the government agencies is harder than it sounds. The DoD has been working on getting their stovepiped systems to talk to one another for 20 years. Remember the big push after 9/11 to get all the first responders talking on the same radio frequencies? Hundreds of millions spent, and still no results. So "incompatible computer systems" doesn't sound to me like a minor hurdle that can be overcome with a couple years' R&D. It sounds more to me like "doomed from the outset."

Possibly our best defense against Big Brother is that the government adopted all its major IT systems before the Internet was a household word.

I'm about to hit your "Paranoid" button. Look up "Fusion Center" in wikipedia.

I've worked for a private data warehouse before, doing DB work, so I have a pretty good understanding of what they are doing. It's a huge data warehouse project funded by DHS, with weak (if any) oversight or guidance. There are at least 72 fusion centers in the US collecting and collating data on citizens and non-citizens alike.

For a really nice scare, look for the YouTube video of Jesse Ventura trying to investigate these centers

Prosecutions for violating existing federal gun laws are down significantly under Obama. Joe Biden said that they do not have the time and manpower in order to pursue violations of the law on background checks. If the Administration does not enforce existing laws, why should we believe that any new laws will make any positive difference?

So if we want to stop Obama's diktats, all we have to do is prevent IT companies from bidding on the contract? If Rahm Emanuel can sit around and tell banks to stop doing business with gun manufacturers, then why can't everyone else tell IT companies not to do business with the Federal Government in regards to firearms?

How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder [google.com]. Will a judge be involved in the ruling, or will the police make the determination? Will it be "confiscate first, check later"?

Will a doctor's word - patient "X" is on antidepressants - be sufficient for the police to come and confiscate arms? Will the confiscation last forever, or can a person be deemed "cured" and get their guns back? Will this cause people to hide real mental health issues for fear of having their property confiscated?

Many people with "mental health issues" have broken no law. This means the government will be taking away the rights of a group of people based on a warm-fuzzy "it seems like the right thing to do" attitude. We could just as easily restrict blacks from having firearms because blacks commit more crimes than whites [yahoo.com] in this country.

People make a lot of hay over the "social contract". It turns out that our ancestors made a social contract which was explicitly put down on paper and said that you could have your centralized government so long as the people can keep guns.

You cannot break that contract directly, you have to change the constitution to do it - that's the rules, and everyone has to abide by them. If you don't believe in the constitution, then the social contract is null and void, and we might as well do away with the federal government.

And where is state governance in all this? What if some states (Texas comes to mind) simply don't want to restrict gun control in this manner? The constitution explicitly states that the federal government can't take this right away.

And finally, you know that this will be abused by law enforcement to extreme levels. Cops will be grabbing guns off of everyone they see claiming "well, he looked like he had mental health issues". Prosecutors will dig up any thin hint of a mental health issue to justify keeping the guns, and no one will be able to get their property back - ever.

This whole issue is a train wreck waiting to happen. Especially since, given the statistics, it will cause more children to be hurt (on average) than relaxing restrictions.

How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder [google.com].

Great question.

As an example, my wife takes Trazadone, an anti-depressant, as a sleep aid. Would she (and myself, since we co-habitate) be barred from owning a gun because she's "on an anti-depressant," even though mental health isn't the reason she takes it?

The linked video talks about the Battle of Athens in the 1940's. This is where a corrupt government was manipulating elections and had local law enforcement on a pay per ticket and arrest structure. The federal government's assistance was requested for election oversight, which was denied, on numerous occasions.

Maybe a tyrannical federal government is not a concern for some, but if it can happen in a state, logic dictates it can happen in any government body.

Should we thus put microphones up everywhere to monitor speech? After all we can effectively monitor everything done over computer and phone communications. Why not have multi-directional highly sensitive microphones put up to record all speech? Effectively SETI but for us (and minus the intelligence part.) Search for Intra Terrestrial Terrorism. We wouldn't be infringing on anyone's free speech after all, just listening - if anything that is enhancing everyones freedom!

That's exactly what I came here to post. Anti-Obama folks were really eager before January 16 to talk about how Obama was about to bypass Congress and implement gun control through executive order, and they never corrected themselves after the fact.

Most of the 23 items are about making existing background checks more effective by encouraging (not ordering) government entities to share information better. Many are clarifying what rights and authority different agencies or individuals (such as doctors) a

The part that concerns me about that is the possibility that Homeland Security's "terrorism watch list" or TSA "No Fly List" will end up being incorporated into the NICS database. I haven't heard about this specifically in the latest batch of orders, but the government proposed it at least once previously.

The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no

The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no legal process by which to remove yourself. A law abiding citizen with no history of crime or mental illness could just be added to the list for whatever reason. That's BS. If we're going to prohibit people from purchasing or owning firearms, it should be done only through due process of law, not by some obscure and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making.

Exactly.

Anyone who doesn't believe that this will inevitably be used to effectively criminalize firearm ownership has obviously failed to learn from history. [wikipedia.org]

At least the gun control debate on/. retains some semblance of reasonable discussion. Try some of the other forums. I had to stop reading HuffPo and Politico because of the worthless ranting and raving, stereotyping, name calling, half truths and blatant lies. Twenty minutes over there will make you really appreciate the message boards here.

- turn cases on a lathe (a variable-speed woodworking lathe will do --- brass is soft)
- bullets are easily cast (you can use a hot plate as a heat source)
- gunpowder is simple kitchen chemistry (I used to make black powder when I was a kid)
- primers can be made from strike-anywhere matches (granted, these are not quite as easy to come by these days, but they haven't been outlawed yet, and when they do, there're other alternatives)